Introduction
The Northern Irish peace process is one that has been in the making for a long time, and can be argued it is still happening today. Northern Ireland is a deeply divided society of Catholic Nationalists and Protestant Unionists, who have fought each other for years over constitutional claims over Northern Ireland, and whether or not it should be apart of the Republic of Ireland (Knox 2009, 441). This constant battle between the two groups has led to violence across the country, and total chaos emerging in government. Northern Ireland was eventually able to reach a peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement, which led to the creation of a power sharing executive, which gave both Nationalists and Unionists a forum to govern.
Since the implementation of power sharing in Northern Ireland in 1998, the violence has stopped, and serviceable government has been formed on and off again for 19 years. Can we attribute the peace in Northern Ireland to the power sharing government? If we can, is this an example that should be followed by other countries that are facing similar issues? I argue that the power sharing method of governance is successful at achieving peace within divided countries, though is a relatively ineffective tool of long-term governance, as long as actors within the government do not grow to cooperate with each other. I will explain using examples of Northern Ireland specifically and draw a brief comparison Cyprus to help explain the effectiveness of the power sharing model.
The Northern Irish Peace Process: A Success?
The peace process in Northern Ireland was long and difficult, and has overall been successful. The establishment of the power sharing executive has led to the end of violence within the country, and has proven that even the deepest of divides can be resolved (Knox 2009, 441). Though, the forthcoming of peace in Northern Ireland was not an easy task, and in large, is still not finished.
The peace process in Northern Ireland has succeeded for a number of reasons, first and foremost was the initiative (Acheson & Milofsky 2008, 64). The initiative to have peace in Northern Ireland was one that was felt across the entire population, not just Nationalists and Unionists or individual groups (Acheson & Milofsky 2008, 65). The want for peace came at a time when peace was desperately needed. The Provisional IRA and British Unionists were hard at Guerilla Warfare in the streets, all whilst a variety of humanitarian issues were being broken on both sides of the conflict (Acheson & Milofsky 2008, 67). The need for peace was evident, and initiative was taken to help stop the violence, and create possible solutions and dialogue between political parties in Northern Ireland (Acheson & Milofsky 2008, 69). The initial peace talks began with the Social Democratic Labor Party (SDLP) and Sinn Fein, with the Hume’s-Adams talks (Borsuk 2016, 45). The Hume’s-Adams talks were talks consisting of SDLP leader John Hume and the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams (Borsuk 2016, 45). These talks were done in private in an effort to draw Sinn Fein out from its abstentionist policies and begin their efforts to work towards peace with the other parties (Borsuk 2016, 45). Sinn Fein would finally adhere to Hume’s suggestion, and would begin their commitment to the peace process, although the Unionist parties would block Sinn Fein from the all-party talks due to the fact that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) had yet to decommission (Borsuk 2016, 46).
The IRA would announce an end to armed struggle in the mid 1990’s, which allowed Sinn Fein to enter the all-party talks, which became the first step to re-establishing communications with the other parties within the country (Borsuk 2016, 49). This would prove to be the first step of the potential re-commissioning of the power sharing agreement established by the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 (O’Kane 2012, 520). These all-party talks would eventually lead to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which was officially the end of “The Troubles” (O’Kane 2012,522).
The Good Friday Agreement marked the beginning of a new power sharing system for the political parties of Northern Ireland (O’Kane 2012, 523). This new power sharing executive would officially put an end to the conflict, yet would fall apart in 2002, and Northern Ireland would return to direct rule for the next 5 years (O’Kane 2012, 527). Within this five-year span, much would change, starting with the official decommissioning of the IRA, which would be the first real step towards peace in the eyes of the Unionists, whom insisted that the violence incited by the IRA had to be stopped (O’Kane 2012, 528). The decommissioning of the IRA was one of the final mandates that had to be met for Sinn Fein, should they ever have wanted to begin the talks with the parties again about creating a new executive, and escaping direct rule (O’Kane 2012, 529). The power sharing executive would be re-established in 2007, and would stay that way until the present (O’Kane 2012, 530).
Power Sharing as a Means of Achieving Peace: Northern Irish & World Success
Power sharing has allowed Northern Ireland to gain stability in their deeply divided society (Knox 2009, 438). The notion of power sharing as a method of peace is one that is beginning to pick up some notoriety in the world, as many countries that are plagued by civil wars and internal conflict, have used this method as a means of helping cool the parties and ease tensions between the combatants (Brusis 2015, 63). In the Northern Irish context, it is evident that the power sharing executive is one that has struggled; yet succeeded at the same time. The struggle for peace met its beginnings with the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973, yet the first power sharing executive created by the agreement would collapse, until the establishment of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 (Knox 2009, 443).
The Good Friday Agreement established a power sharing executive, which represented both identities in the divided Northern Irish community (Knox 2009, 444). This agreement was reached with the help of the Hume’s-Adams talks, which began the full peace process, including the All-Party Talks in 1996 (Buchanan 2008, 389). Northern Ireland’s trial with a power sharing executive has been a shaky one, with two collapses, multiple elections, and many angry constituents (Carvalho 2016, 23). The executive in Northern Ireland has been mainly been compromised of two polar opposite parties: the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Fein, who have guided the executive to stalemate with regards to policy making within the government (Knox 2009, 438). One thing that this executive has done in Northern Ireland is it has achieved the goal of peace, which in reality was the ultimate goal of the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 (Buchanan 2008, 389).
Achieving peace in divided society has been proven possible with the example given of Northern Ireland. However, is there a difference between Northern Ireland and other countries situations? The Answer is yes. Each country has its own unique circumstances for conflict: whether it is governance, religion, ethnicity, etc. Despite circumstantial differences, power-sharing governments are still by-far one of the most effective means of governance in societies with large issues/cleavages such as Northern Ireland’s (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 848).
McGarry and Loizides discuss a similar case to that of Northern Ireland, the case of power sharing in Cyprus. There are many comparisons to be drawn between the two countries, such as a two nationality divide, both of which having relatively equal strength (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 849). In Cyprus, the divide consists of the Turkish Cyprians, and the Greek Cyprians, much like Northern Ireland’s Nationalist-Unionist divide (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 849). The people of Cyprus are left with an issue of civil & military conflict as since 1974, Turkish forces began invading the sovereign nation, and claiming it as their own (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 849). The Turkish invasion of the island nation is a direct response to the British invasion of Cyprus in the midst of the nations inclusion in the Ottoman Empire (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 856). The island is no longer home to the British, but now in part to Greek immigrants who migrated over in the same period of British Occupation, leaving them stuck in the middle of the old conflict between the British and the Ottoman Empire (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 856). This is a deeply rooted land dispute, which ultimately has reached international notoriety, as the nation is sovereign, and technically does not belong to either country, yet Turkey still lays claim to the island (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 857). In the midst of the dispute, through third party negotiations by the European Union (EU), and warmed relationships between the two sides, the two citizen groups, the Greeks and the Turks, have begun commencements to form a power sharing administration to help better govern the country (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 858). The discussions began in 2014, and continue to this very day, as new aspects of the leaders from each group, continue to resolve issues between the Turks and the Greeks (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 863). This peaceful resolution comes as a result of tense times throughout the years in Cyprus, which included missile crisis, EU intervention, and almost civil war between the Turkish Nationalists and the Greek Cyprians (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 864).
The effectiveness of power sharing has been noticed by both the European Union and the United Nations, so much so the EU has publicly endorsed the idea of consociational power sharing agreements as a method of peace making in divided society amidst troubles (Brusis 2015, 63). The European Union has implemented the notion of power sharing into its convention on minority issues (Brusis 2015, 63). The EU has implemented this policy due to its rapid success around the world, in places where minority groups are often left without any power: Bulgaria, Slovakia & Hungary among others (Brusis 2015, 65). The policies substance is intended to help remove the domestic political factors that prevent minority groups from participating in domestic politics, which has led to the rise in voter turnout in domestic elections amongst minority groups, since they now have some form of representation (Brusis 2015, 74).
Power Sharing and Peace: The First Steps?
Power sharing governments and peace definitely have some correlation. It seems rational to think that giving someone a voice can help ease the transition in to peace, especially in the case of deeply divided societies such as Northern Ireland. However, just because a method has been successful circumstances, does not necessarily mean that it will be successful in another. The Northern Irish experience on consociationalist power sharing can be very different compared to another, therefor it becomes difficult to state that the method used for peace in Northern Ireland can be one used for all. What can be stated is that the power sharing method used in Northern Ireland can be more or less the first steps in helping incentivize governments and people to cooperate and help create some type of common ground to achieve peace in divided society. The most important aspect to focus on when discussing the peace in conflict plagued societies, is the success of power sharing, and the diversity of parties/groups that have emerged because of it (Dixon 2012, 269). The Good Friday Agreement was extremely effective in creating peace in Northern Ireland, as armed conflict has stopped, and it appears that the country has settled in to its new political atmosphere (Dixon 2012, 270). In Cyprus, the new power sharing arrangements (still pending signatures) shows that the two conflicting sides are willing to work together to start peace, and end the chaos and violence (McGarry & Loizides 2015, 869).
Power Sharing Governments: Long or Short Term Success?
The notion of power sharing is one that is mainly meant to be short term, specifically pertaining to two main goals: to create peace, and provide opportunity for governments to grow within their respective countries (Carvalho 2016, 25). This method is good in short term, as shown in the cases of Northern Ireland and Cyprus, however in the long-term, this leaves governments with the difficulty of becoming a “true democracy” (Carvalho 2016, 26). The reasoning behind this is the exact issue that is in Northern Ireland, there is an unwillingness to cross party lines to achieve progress, based on the cleavages that have been set by the two or more existing groups (Carvalho 2016, 26). These party lines are especially difficult to cross considering the districting issues that are present in many of these conflict plagued countries (Carvalho 2016, 26). Districts are set up containing a certain ethnicity, religious group, etc. which leaves little room for the minority voices, or those with differing ideals to voice their thoughts (Carvalho 2016, 27). Since party lines are difficult to cross, especially in Northern Ireland, it becomes evident that this power sharing executive may not exactly be the best long term solution for the country, especially if they can’t even keep a government together (Wilford 2014, 770).
Consociational power sharing is an effective method of achieving peace, but is a cumbersome model to achieve good governance (McAuley & Tonge 2010, 270). Essentially what this shows is peace has a price. Not every society is as divided on both political and civil issues as Northern Ireland, but in their case this is factual (McAuley & Tonge 2010, 271). Since peace has been made, and it appears that this time it will last, Northern Ireland can now focus on how to make effective government despite the large differences between the two sides of the spectrum (McAuley & Tonge 2010, 271). Now that Irish Nationalists and British Unionists have achieved some sort of peace, can they begin an effective mode of governance as well?
Good Governance in Northern Ireland: The Price of Power Sharing?
Peace should always be the number one priority of any society that has a large divide with means of governance and civil society, and it appears Northern Ireland’s power sharing method has done that (McAuley & Tonge 2010, 275). However, what’s the next step? Now that Northern Ireland has peace, can they form effective government? The quick and current answer appears to be no. With the DUP and Sinn Fein controlling much of the executive, it becomes cumbersome to have any type of policy pass through, let alone maintain a government without collapse (Garry 2014, 5). It’s becoming evident that the Nationalist community is now becoming larger in Northern Ireland, and the DUP and the Unionists are so fragmented, that they cant seem to mount any crushing blows to Sinn Fein, which is increasing popularity in the Nationalist community (Garry 2014, 6). Since Sinn Fein and the DUP have almost no common ground, how can the people of Northern Ireland expect good governance, especially with either party’s unwillingness for any type of cross-community work (Garry 2014,6).
Social Democratic Labor Party (SDLP) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) claim to support cross-community voting and cross-community activities in general as a means of better governance (Garry 2014, 7). Cross-community voting and talks in Northern Ireland could hold the keys moving forward to effective governance, while maintaining peace (Garry 2014, 7). Though, the problem becomes convincing the people of Sinn Fein and the people of the DUP to work together within parliament (Garry 2014, 7).
The problems surrounding good governance in Northern Ireland appear to be stuck on the lingering issues of the past, and the core principles of the two main parties which have arisen: Sinn Fein and the DUP (Garry 2014, 8). The core issue in Northern Ireland of course being the issue of Unionism vs. Nationalism, it appears that the two main parties block each other in policy making, based on those principles, which can be understandable to a certain degree, yet troublesome for those who wish to have their country governed beyond that main issue (Garry 2014, 9). Until this main issue can be solved, it’s difficult to imagine any form of strong governance emerging from Northern Ireland, despite the message sent fourth by the SDLP and the UUP of cross-community voting, it remains uncertain if good governance and legislation will ever take place in Northern Ireland (Wilford 2015, 771).
Conclusion and Looking Forward
Northern Ireland’s successful peace process has become a model for other countries in the world that face deeply divided societies, and is looking for solutions. The power sharing executive set up by the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland has allowed Northern Ireland to have peace amidst their chaotic history. This method for peace has been duly noted by the European Union, and the United Nations (Brusis 2015, 63). The peace process and power sharing executive has proven to be a success at the international level in aiding countries that are plagued by conflict (Carvalho 2016, 29). Power sharing government has shown it’s ability to keep peace in the short term, it has also shown us that it requires governments to grow with the new method of governance, though this is easier said than done. Although Northern Ireland has been able to achieve peace, it now provides the country with the opportunity to grow. As of now, the power sharing executive in Northern Ireland consists of very divided parties, which has led to a very cumbersome and now a no longer existent executive, which has not progressed Northern Ireland in any way. This method of governance has saved Northern Ireland from war, yet now in a post-war society, it appears to be stuck in neutral with regards to large policy issues (Borsuk 2016, 45). Until the Northern Irish executive, mainly Sinn Fein and the DUP can begin cross-community voting and creating compromise within the executive, the people of Northern Ireland really can’t expect much change (Borsuk 2016, 47).